Revenge in the House of Usher

Greetings And Salutations, and welcome to my review of Revenge In The House Of Usher; here's the breakdown of my ratings:

Story: 1.00 Direction: 0.75 Pace: 0.25 Acting: 0.75 Enjoyment: 0.75

TOTAL: 3.50 out of 10

Oh dear, what happened to Jesus Franco? After watching his version of Dracula, which I didn't mind, I thought I'd keep an eye on this director. However, had I viewed any of his subsequent films first, I would never have watched Dracula. It would appear Franco plummeted after old fang face. Though Revenge shows a glimmer of hope in its direction, the story is atrocious.

However, its awfulness isn't too surprising. Not when you consider the three rewrites it required to get international distribution. Three revisions and three movies. Why not forget the project after being laughed at and booed out of the festival and revisit it later? I don't mind the premise for the final story. The trouble is that Franco tries to cobble it together with the original tale, making it problematic. It would have been better to start afresh with a new script. He then shoots the new scenes and patches them into the previous work to create a new monster. Yep. Franco is Frankenstein, but his creation isn't as entertaining as Victor's.

That said, I did see a glimmer of hope in Franco's filming. Some segments are pretty decent. He utilises shadows and light to create an uneasy atmosphere. There are some diverse camera angles to add interest to the scenes. Sadly though, he doesn't get the best from his cast. And they often let him down, as does the flow of the picture. It's okay for a set to be lit and filmed perfectly, but if the sequence drags on too long or the performers don't bring their characters to life, the segment starts to fail. And there are too many of these in Revenge. One of the worst and best things with Revenge is Dr Orloff. Franco takes a large portion of the black and white Dr Orloff flick to use as a backstory to his character of Eric Usher. The good thing is that both films' lead character is portrayed by Howard Vernon. The terrible thing is also Howerd Vernon playing both characters. In the old B&W clips, Vernon is a much stronger actor. He comes across with panache and flair. In Revenge, it's a different story. He looks bored and comes across as tired, for the most part. The lack of umph is a hindrance to the film. It adds to the picture's lacklustre feel and dullness. It's a shame as he appeared to be a talented actor.

In fact, a few of the cast members suffer from the same malediction. The worst is the second lead, Antonio Mayans, as Alan Harker. Franco could have saved money by substituting Mayans for a cardboard cut-out - It would have possessed the same emotional range.

Revenge in the right hands and with the right performers could have been good. Sadly, the hands belonged to Jesus Franco and his regular cast of actors and actresses. Therefore, unless you're a die-hard Franco fan, I suggest you beat a clear path away from this House Of Usher.

Please feel free to visit my Killer Thriller Chillers and Absolute Horror lists to see where I ranked Revenge In The House Of Usher.

Take Care & Stay Well.

I couldn't agree more. Unfortunately I BOUGHT it (cheaply) and you've done better than me because I've attempted to watch it twice with no luck. Where does the aka Zombie bit in the title come from? The reason I bought it was one of the cast from Blairwitch Project said in an interview that a House of Usher film was their favorite horror. On checking after my mistake, it was a different House of Usher film!

When Dr.Alan Harker travels to the crumbling estate of his university mentor Dr.Usher,he finds the man plagued by a horrible paranoia-destroyed by his repeated attempts at awakening his comatose daughter.Haunted by ghosts of his dead family members,Dr.Usher is rushing toward madness,with only Harker left to save him.I can easily say that I'm a big fan of Jesus Franco,unfortunately "Revenge in the House of Usher" is breathtakingly awful.Those expecting gore and sex in a Eurohorror title(especially from Franco)will be sorely disappointed,because there is absolutely no nudity or blood in this one.The pacing is horribly slow and there are a lot of 'flashback' scenes taken from Franco's earlier horror classic "The Awful Dr.Orloff".Avoid this piece of stinking crap like the plague.

Phew...I am a devoted fan of Jess Franco, but watching 3 incredibly awful movies of his in less than one week (this one, Oasis of the Zombies and The Castle of Fu Manchu) really isn't my admiration and respect for him doing much good! "Revenge in the House of Usher" is a very disappointing effort and it's a complete mystery to me what Franco intended to pull off by making it. Why filming another version of Edgar Allan Poe's classic tale when there are already other (and better) movies made revolving on the tale of the Ushers? Why did Franco feel it was necessary to link Poe's tale with his own 60's chiller "The Awful Dr. Orloff"? And, more importantly, why in God's name did I spent 10 Pounds buying this DVD?? This movie has nothing to do with Poe, it's unimaginably boring and it lacks every form of action or excitement. Howard Vernon (him again) stars as an insane "doctor" who keeps on trying to resurrect his late daughter with the blood of young girls. Living with him in the ramshackle castle are some insane employees and a couple of ghosts from the past. 'Revenge in the House of Usher' is horribly slow and it completely lacks all the elements that made Jess Franco (in)famous! Lina Romay stars in this film, yet she keeps her clothes on and the only bit of violence there was to see were actually flashbacks. I can imagine Franco is proud of his "Awful Dr. Orloff" but that doesn't give him the right to re-edit entire sequences of it in other movies! Like every other reviewer here already pointed out: stay far away from this movie!

Let's look at two movies, both of which have as their subject matter a man haunted by images of his dead wife. Both films are photographed by their directors, and both star highly respected character actors. The first film is a remake of classic, and the second incorporates lengthy scenes from a classic. The first film cost around $47,000,000; the second, around $1.98. The first film is Steven Soderbergh's remake of Solaris; the second is Jess Franco's Revenge in the House of Usher. Guess which one is better?

Revenge in the House of Usher is director Franco's apology for, and commentary upon, his first breakthrough hit, the groundbreaking and highly influential The Awful Dr. Orloff. In that film Orloff was a Sadean Superman, perverse and transgressive, taking horrific delight in his bloodthirsty usurpation of traditional values. Here, transmogrified into Dr. Usher, he is reduced to a blithering and doddering old man, tormented by the images of the women that he has sacrificed to his appalling morality. Franco has often been accused of sharing Orloff's extreme misogyny, but anyone familiar with his work will know that Franco was alway's on the women's side. Franco makes clear that Orloff/Usher's 'project', his desire to resurrect his disfigured daughter, Melissa, is only a pretext, a trigger, a spur, to his grotesquely Sadean 'transvaluation of all values'. Appropriately, Melissa becomes just another anonymous tortured body; when revived by the blood of Orloff/Usher's victims, Melissa can only writhe in excruciating pain before lapsing back into blissful unconsciousness. Clearly, the tormenting spectre of Orloff/Usher's wife, whether real or merely Orloff/Usher's per fervid imagining, reproaching her husband for his dreadful treatment of women, is Franco's judgment upon the character that put him on the cinematic map.

Revenge in the House of Usher has taken a lot of abuse on this site, rather unfairly, in my opinion. Image Entertainment's DVD restores Franco's impressive, if somewhat erratic, visual style; and Howard Vernon, as Usher/Orloff, and Linay Romay, as his housekeeper, give excellent, committed performances. Yes, the film is slow, poverty stricken, and lacking in nudity and gore, but it is about something rather important, if only you, the viewer, will pay attention. There is a sensibility at work here, allied with considerable technical skill, that insists on persevering beyond all financial and other material limitations. It's a hell of a lot better than watching Ocean's 12 again.